can someone plz make this Case shorter i want just the Important details

Summary: A woman claimed that she was offered a short term job as an IT support officer at a university in a telephone conversation, and after meeting with the manager and his assistant, the offer was withdrawn. She also claimed she was asked unnecessary questions at the meeting, and that the offer was withdrawn because she was a woman aged 50. The woman complained of age and sex discrimination. At the tribunal she also wanted to claim race and impairment discrimination however the tribunal considered there was no basis for either claim. The woman was self-represented and although English was her second language, the tribunal was satisfied that she was able to express herself, and that the hearing was conducted in a way that she was not disadvantaged. The woman had contacted the staff at the university's Temp Register with a view to obtaining employment in an IT role. Shortly after, the IT service delivery manager required a short tem casual employee to complete some projects. His colleague consulted the Temp Register and telephoned the woman to discuss suitability for the role. The woman alleged that when the assistant phoned her, she was offered and accepted the job. She claimed that it was agreed that she would start work a few days later, however she did not attend the university to start work on that day. Rather, on that day the assistant sent an email to the woman arranging a coffee meeting the following day with herself and the manager The woman maintained that the manager congratulated her on getting the job, even though the woman made numerous calls and sent an email to the assistant after the meeting asking whether she was" on board". A few days later the assistant told the woman that she had not been successful and the reasons why. The tribunal accepted the evidence of the assistant that she had not offered the job to the woman in the phone call, and the evidence of the manager and the assistant that they did not offer the job to the woman at the coffee meeting. The tribunal discussed the test for direct discrimination, noting that it had to be established that there was treatment that was less favourable than treatment of a person without the attribute in similar circumstances, and that the reason for the treatment was wholly or substantially one or both of the attributes. The tribunal found that the proper comparator would be a male, under the age of 50, who presented in telephone contact and at interview in the same or similar way as the woman that is, in a nervous manner. The tribunal found that the woman was not offered a job, and that the only reason she was not offered the job because the manager and the assistant considered she was too nervous, which made her not suitable for the job. The tribunal was unable to discem any indirect discrimination of the woman. The woman also alleged that at the meeting she had been asked about family connections to the university. The tribunal was unable to identify how such information might form the basis of unlawful discrimination The tribunal said the complaint proceeded entirely on the woman's speculation or supposition about the motives of the manager and the assistant that was not objectively reasonable. The complaint was dismissed